Engineer Says Software Firm Cut Her Maternity Leave Short After Her Baby Died

Post by iknowalot » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 8:48 AM UTC

bryanmgreen wrote: post #192

52-6F-62 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a coworker who went through this. My bosses were very gracious. She was on leave for some time, purely for mental health reasons. And I’m sure returning to work with her job intact was a major comfort. Our direct boss at the time would meet with her for lunch occasionally until she felt well enough to come back. I’m willing to bet it was the best way it could have gone for her in light of what she experienced.…

What a tremendous display of empathy and leadership to visit your grieving employee.

Post by scott_s » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

traderjane wrote: post #95

asveikau wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of cases like this article. Evidently this woman's employer does not have the insight to behave like decent human beings and needs to be forced. Your argument can be turned on just about any labor law. "It may be reasonable for a company to do this, but why should they be forced?" The answer is without reasonable minimum standards, some people will exploit their employees.

That doesn’t speak to why the employer should do this rather than government. When employers provide this social good they will inevitably call some of the shots; why should their voice have influence on this matter? To me, this is similar to the public coming to the feeling that digital public spaces are worthy, but then the conversation turns to whether Facebook should be the one doing it...

Post by lazyasciiart » Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #138

lazyasciiart wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Absolutely compare what a single person gets on JSA to the much more generous Unemployment benefits lasting much longer than it does in the UK

Post by cmdshiftf4 » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #215

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #124

We're in an odd state of paralysis as a society. On the one hand, we acknowledge that there are birth rate / population-related issues coming rapidly down the pipeline at us, problems we acknowledge can only be solved by either supporting existing citizens/families in having more children or mass migration. Through exhaustion with unaccountable corruption and reckless, ineffective public spending by all parties on th…

> population-related issues don't we also have far more pressing carbon emissions issues though ? Isn't population decline such a bad thing. Do we really need billions and billions of people because its 'good for the economy'

Post by dominotw » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #227

dominotw wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> population-related issues don't we also have far more pressing carbon emissions issues though ? Isn't population decline such a bad thing. Do we really need billions and billions of people because its 'good for the economy'

Population decline in and of itself is not a bad thing. The societies and structures we've created, such as public pensions, do rely on continual growth though and without it will face a crisis.